Picture found discarded here and duly picked up. Seems to have become distorted in transit somehow.
I wonder, does anyone have access to the cloakroom these coats are stored in at night?
Sunday, 22 August 2010
No self control.
Sometimes I just can't help myself...
Picture found discarded here and duly picked up. Seems to have become distorted in transit somehow.
I wonder, does anyone have access to the cloakroom these coats are stored in at night?
Picture found discarded here and duly picked up. Seems to have become distorted in transit somehow.
I wonder, does anyone have access to the cloakroom these coats are stored in at night?
The form of war.
I've been reading through the comments on the BMJ smokophobia blog. That's all there is, new comments. No new posts. Some long and interesting comments.
One mentioned that the war on smokers was like the war in Afghanistan. They aren't shooting at us yet although they are in training for that. What he meant was that the form of war was the same.
Obnoxio has often pointed out that his ideal society, close to but not quite anarchy, would not be as open to invasion as his critics claim. Rather than take down the generals and the seat of government, an invader would have to take the country house by house because there is no central command to target. That's pretty much the situation in Afghanistan. Taking out one rebel leader has little effect because they come from the ranks. Another one steps forward at once. Taking control of a town means nothing to those in the next town. Taking control of the government, such as it is, means nothing at all to the Taliban because they don't recognise the government.
That pretty much describes the smokers' position. If a smoker quits, we are not damaged. We don't even mind. Their choice - they choose to quit, that's no problem. The war on smokers is just like the war on drugs, the war on booze, the war on salt, all of them.
They are making war on an anarchic system. There is no 'smoker's council of Britain'. There is no 'chief smoking officer'. There are no generals and no politicians. There are a few well-known names but again, all the well-known names are just smokers. There is no industry backup. Take down all the tobacco companies and we'll just grow the stuff ourselves. Sure, you could make that illegal because that really worked with cannabis, didn't it?
When we organise, we do so in small and temporary groups. Trips abroad to stock up. Appeals for help for one of the smokophobes' victims. We come together for one specific task and when it's done, we disperse back into the crowd.
We have no uniforms. When we're not actually smoking, you can't tell who we are. Think for a moment, smokophobes. I know it's an alien concept but give it a go. If, as you assert, we smell of tobacco all the time, why does your doctor ask you if you smoke? Surely it's obvious as soon as you walk through the door? It isn't obvious, despite your best efforts to make us believe it is. No, unless we are actively smoking you cannot see us and that drives you people nuts.
Make us wear badges? We'll wear them while smoking and take them off when not smoking. Appear and disappear, just like that. You can't enforce the badges because you can't tell who we are.
Tobacco advertising is banned, but the likes of ASH keep smoking in the news every day. That's where the new smokers come from. Not the tobacco industry, which is unable to advertise and soon won't even be able to display their products in shops. Will that stop people smoking?
Man with a Van does not advertise and has no display. He doesn't even have a shop. He's doing okay. He does not sell to underage smokers because he is not immoral, but once the displays are gone, well, unscrupulous shops can easily pass a plain grey packet to a ten-year-old, wrapped in the Beano. Taking away the displays and the distinctive packaging will make underage smoking easier, not harder. There won't be a flash of gold or white or red to alert any adults to what that child has. Just a plain grey packet.
ASH create their own enemy by constantly promoting smoking, putting up signs about smoking in every enclosed space - even in churches, where previously smoking would be unlikely to cross anyone's mind. Now, every time they go in, there's that sign. Everyone who starts, does so as an individual. They don't 'join the club'. There is no club. They don't join some 'army of smokers'. There is no army. We don't answer to some Big Boss Smoker and we don't have any rules. There is no membership - start or stop smoking as you choose, we don't mind either way.
Nor do we have any hierarchy. No local organisation, no national organisation. No funding. There are Forest and Freedom-2-choose but if they were suddenly shut down, would the smokers in those groups stop smoking? Would those outside those groups stop smoking? No, they might form another group or they might disperse for a while but only the organisation is gone. The people remain.
There is nothing to attack. There is nothing to break other than the individual and when the smokophobes try to break one by force, the rest of us come out of the woodwork, deal with the matter and disappear again. We don't have marches or rallies, we have no flag and we don't wear badges.
Sometimes we do. Sometimes we have a flag, but the image on the flag is not fixed. We don't have any rules about that either. It can look any way you want it to look. I put the image on magnetic photo paper and stick it to metal surfaces - such as those outside ashtrays. When they vanish, I put up another one. Some use stickers, some use flyers, but the message is getting out. There are no prescribed formats for distribution, there is no central organisation drafting rules.
And there is only one item on the agenda.
ASH have rules. The BMA have rules. Government have rules. They all have organisations, they all have key people who, if discredited, would severely damage that organisation. Take the case of the New Nazi Youth in Medway. If that freak of a teacher were discredited, those children would not feel empowered to harass people in the street. If Rachael Noxious were out of a job, the teacher would not have had funding for her 'Achtung! Juden!' re-enactment. Within their NHS and council supporters are key figures, points open to attack which will bring their organisation tumbling down.
I don't mean physical attack. That would garner sympathy. No, I mean verbal attack. With facts. They hate facts. Discredit them, make them a laughing stock but do nothing that could be considered an assault. Leave the violence to them unless confronted by it.
Remember, the smokophobes organise. They love to have badges, they enjoy the thrill of Gestapo membership, they revel in the acclaim of their masters.
When they attack a smoker in the street, they cannot know how many of us are around them unless we are all, simultaneously, smoking - and that's rare. They also believe that all nonsmokers are antismokers, which is very far from true. Not all nonsmokers will support their actions. The smokophobes are nowhere near as numerous as they think they are, and they love to be noticed.
Smokers are more numerous than their figures show because we don't register when we buy from Man with a Van or overseas. We are invisible as soon as that little fire goes out. We don't organise, we deal with an issue as a group then disperse as individuals. You can't hide from us because you can't see us.
Ollie Gapper, the cameraman who put up the Ciggie Busters video and who listed among his hobbies 'calling smokers and chavs idiots', now knows what our form of war means. Rachael Noxious knows. Mangled Greymatter knows.
From these, we can trace a chain of command, so those who hide behind the frontline lunatics are not safe. They can't see us coming. We might already be there and they'd never notice.
We have no such chain of command. I take orders from nobody and I give orders to nobody, which is a situation that the smokophobes are incapable of comprehending. Because of that, they can't beat me because there is nothing to attack. They invent a chain of command - 'all blogging smokers are in the pay of the tobacco industry' - and attack that. They are fighting ghosts.
If they stop me blogging, if they stop all of us blogging, we'll be back with new blogs within the hour. We won't have meetings about it, we don't have to wait for instructions, we'll just do it. Individually. If they catch Man with a Van there'll be another one along to plug that gap in the market. If they attack one of us in the street, they will be unaware that the street might actually be full of smokers who are not smoking at that particular moment. There's no way to tell.
We'll pop up, light up, and then disappear.
Smokophobes, you brought this into open war. We're all around you and you can't see us.
This is your Vietnam.
One mentioned that the war on smokers was like the war in Afghanistan. They aren't shooting at us yet although they are in training for that. What he meant was that the form of war was the same.
Obnoxio has often pointed out that his ideal society, close to but not quite anarchy, would not be as open to invasion as his critics claim. Rather than take down the generals and the seat of government, an invader would have to take the country house by house because there is no central command to target. That's pretty much the situation in Afghanistan. Taking out one rebel leader has little effect because they come from the ranks. Another one steps forward at once. Taking control of a town means nothing to those in the next town. Taking control of the government, such as it is, means nothing at all to the Taliban because they don't recognise the government.
That pretty much describes the smokers' position. If a smoker quits, we are not damaged. We don't even mind. Their choice - they choose to quit, that's no problem. The war on smokers is just like the war on drugs, the war on booze, the war on salt, all of them.
They are making war on an anarchic system. There is no 'smoker's council of Britain'. There is no 'chief smoking officer'. There are no generals and no politicians. There are a few well-known names but again, all the well-known names are just smokers. There is no industry backup. Take down all the tobacco companies and we'll just grow the stuff ourselves. Sure, you could make that illegal because that really worked with cannabis, didn't it?
When we organise, we do so in small and temporary groups. Trips abroad to stock up. Appeals for help for one of the smokophobes' victims. We come together for one specific task and when it's done, we disperse back into the crowd.
We have no uniforms. When we're not actually smoking, you can't tell who we are. Think for a moment, smokophobes. I know it's an alien concept but give it a go. If, as you assert, we smell of tobacco all the time, why does your doctor ask you if you smoke? Surely it's obvious as soon as you walk through the door? It isn't obvious, despite your best efforts to make us believe it is. No, unless we are actively smoking you cannot see us and that drives you people nuts.
Make us wear badges? We'll wear them while smoking and take them off when not smoking. Appear and disappear, just like that. You can't enforce the badges because you can't tell who we are.
Tobacco advertising is banned, but the likes of ASH keep smoking in the news every day. That's where the new smokers come from. Not the tobacco industry, which is unable to advertise and soon won't even be able to display their products in shops. Will that stop people smoking?
Man with a Van does not advertise and has no display. He doesn't even have a shop. He's doing okay. He does not sell to underage smokers because he is not immoral, but once the displays are gone, well, unscrupulous shops can easily pass a plain grey packet to a ten-year-old, wrapped in the Beano. Taking away the displays and the distinctive packaging will make underage smoking easier, not harder. There won't be a flash of gold or white or red to alert any adults to what that child has. Just a plain grey packet.
ASH create their own enemy by constantly promoting smoking, putting up signs about smoking in every enclosed space - even in churches, where previously smoking would be unlikely to cross anyone's mind. Now, every time they go in, there's that sign. Everyone who starts, does so as an individual. They don't 'join the club'. There is no club. They don't join some 'army of smokers'. There is no army. We don't answer to some Big Boss Smoker and we don't have any rules. There is no membership - start or stop smoking as you choose, we don't mind either way.
Nor do we have any hierarchy. No local organisation, no national organisation. No funding. There are Forest and Freedom-2-choose but if they were suddenly shut down, would the smokers in those groups stop smoking? Would those outside those groups stop smoking? No, they might form another group or they might disperse for a while but only the organisation is gone. The people remain.
There is nothing to attack. There is nothing to break other than the individual and when the smokophobes try to break one by force, the rest of us come out of the woodwork, deal with the matter and disappear again. We don't have marches or rallies, we have no flag and we don't wear badges.
Sometimes we do. Sometimes we have a flag, but the image on the flag is not fixed. We don't have any rules about that either. It can look any way you want it to look. I put the image on magnetic photo paper and stick it to metal surfaces - such as those outside ashtrays. When they vanish, I put up another one. Some use stickers, some use flyers, but the message is getting out. There are no prescribed formats for distribution, there is no central organisation drafting rules.
And there is only one item on the agenda.
ASH have rules. The BMA have rules. Government have rules. They all have organisations, they all have key people who, if discredited, would severely damage that organisation. Take the case of the New Nazi Youth in Medway. If that freak of a teacher were discredited, those children would not feel empowered to harass people in the street. If Rachael Noxious were out of a job, the teacher would not have had funding for her 'Achtung! Juden!' re-enactment. Within their NHS and council supporters are key figures, points open to attack which will bring their organisation tumbling down.
I don't mean physical attack. That would garner sympathy. No, I mean verbal attack. With facts. They hate facts. Discredit them, make them a laughing stock but do nothing that could be considered an assault. Leave the violence to them unless confronted by it.
Remember, the smokophobes organise. They love to have badges, they enjoy the thrill of Gestapo membership, they revel in the acclaim of their masters.
When they attack a smoker in the street, they cannot know how many of us are around them unless we are all, simultaneously, smoking - and that's rare. They also believe that all nonsmokers are antismokers, which is very far from true. Not all nonsmokers will support their actions. The smokophobes are nowhere near as numerous as they think they are, and they love to be noticed.
Smokers are more numerous than their figures show because we don't register when we buy from Man with a Van or overseas. We are invisible as soon as that little fire goes out. We don't organise, we deal with an issue as a group then disperse as individuals. You can't hide from us because you can't see us.
Ollie Gapper, the cameraman who put up the Ciggie Busters video and who listed among his hobbies 'calling smokers and chavs idiots', now knows what our form of war means. Rachael Noxious knows. Mangled Greymatter knows.
From these, we can trace a chain of command, so those who hide behind the frontline lunatics are not safe. They can't see us coming. We might already be there and they'd never notice.
We have no such chain of command. I take orders from nobody and I give orders to nobody, which is a situation that the smokophobes are incapable of comprehending. Because of that, they can't beat me because there is nothing to attack. They invent a chain of command - 'all blogging smokers are in the pay of the tobacco industry' - and attack that. They are fighting ghosts.
If they stop me blogging, if they stop all of us blogging, we'll be back with new blogs within the hour. We won't have meetings about it, we don't have to wait for instructions, we'll just do it. Individually. If they catch Man with a Van there'll be another one along to plug that gap in the market. If they attack one of us in the street, they will be unaware that the street might actually be full of smokers who are not smoking at that particular moment. There's no way to tell.
We'll pop up, light up, and then disappear.
Smokophobes, you brought this into open war. We're all around you and you can't see us.
This is your Vietnam.
All Presbyterians are smokophobes.
Using the causation=correlation rule of the enemy (and remember, they wrote the rules of engagement) we can only conclude that the smokophobe Dr. Ronald Crystal speaks for all Presbyterians everywhere, present, past and future.
Yes, in the real world we know that he is only interested in boosting money for his pretend research but we are not fighting in the real world. We are fighting in the Righteous world by Righteous rules.
Therefore all Presbyterians are the enemy. It's no good commenting 'I am Presbyterian and I am not an antismoker' because Dr. Crystal speaks for all of you. Correlation equals causation. Your rules, Righteous. If you are Presbyterian you are the enemy. No exceptions. No compromise. Dr. Crystal is one of you and you are homogenous. Again, your rules. Deal with it internally, it's not the smokers' problem. It's yours.
If you smoke and are Presbyterian it's time to choose. Stop smoking or find a Christian religion that doesn't regard you as filth. There are a few left. Anglicanism is pretty cool about most things and as a religion, they're pretty laid back. So far. Leave the diktats of Dr. Crystal and embrace a faith that is forgiving and genuine, without the fake science and extensions to the Bible that the Presbyterians sinfully encourage.
Dr. Crystal is extending the remit of the Bible and as any Christian knows, that is downright evil and will condemn him and all who follow him to the lowest depths of Hell. There is absolutely no mention of smoking in the Bible at all. Not a word. Yet Dr. Crystal has brought every Presbyterian into the clutches of Satan with his personal dislike of something that God has never mentioned at all. This is the same God who created tobacco, by the way.
Oh, Presbyterians, your time is up now. You have endorsed and paid for a man who has gone beyond the Bible's remit and you have encouraged his personal rewriting of what is right and what is wrong.
Let's hope you can all sleep at night now - because there's no sleep where you're going.
Hey, it's not all bad news. If you smoke, at least you'll get a light.
Yes, in the real world we know that he is only interested in boosting money for his pretend research but we are not fighting in the real world. We are fighting in the Righteous world by Righteous rules.
Therefore all Presbyterians are the enemy. It's no good commenting 'I am Presbyterian and I am not an antismoker' because Dr. Crystal speaks for all of you. Correlation equals causation. Your rules, Righteous. If you are Presbyterian you are the enemy. No exceptions. No compromise. Dr. Crystal is one of you and you are homogenous. Again, your rules. Deal with it internally, it's not the smokers' problem. It's yours.
If you smoke and are Presbyterian it's time to choose. Stop smoking or find a Christian religion that doesn't regard you as filth. There are a few left. Anglicanism is pretty cool about most things and as a religion, they're pretty laid back. So far. Leave the diktats of Dr. Crystal and embrace a faith that is forgiving and genuine, without the fake science and extensions to the Bible that the Presbyterians sinfully encourage.
Dr. Crystal is extending the remit of the Bible and as any Christian knows, that is downright evil and will condemn him and all who follow him to the lowest depths of Hell. There is absolutely no mention of smoking in the Bible at all. Not a word. Yet Dr. Crystal has brought every Presbyterian into the clutches of Satan with his personal dislike of something that God has never mentioned at all. This is the same God who created tobacco, by the way.
Oh, Presbyterians, your time is up now. You have endorsed and paid for a man who has gone beyond the Bible's remit and you have encouraged his personal rewriting of what is right and what is wrong.
Let's hope you can all sleep at night now - because there's no sleep where you're going.
Hey, it's not all bad news. If you smoke, at least you'll get a light.
Saturday, 21 August 2010
Spooky film night.
I have here a litre of Whyte and MacKay Glasgow Special and a DVD called 'Dead Silence' - a scary filum of the 'ventriloquist dummy' variety. Even adding in the entire cost of a 2 oz pack of baccy (which lasts almost a week) and the entire cost of the whisky (which won't) and the DVD which is now mine until I give it away, the evening will cost me less than £30.
I can pretend I'm at the pictures in the old days, with smoke and booze and film all at the same time.
In fact, if I could get hold of one of those ceiling mounted projector TVs, I could even have smoke in the beams.
All I need now is a wench in a short skirt with a tray of ice creams. And a git rustling a popcorn packet behind me. A few chattering children and an idiot with a red-rimmed torch flashing his way around...
Nah. This is better than the old days. I miss the wench with the tray of ices though.
Back later, hopefully wide-eyed and with hair on end.
I haven't forgotten the Smoke Wars. There are slogans to design for the other parties before the Holyrood elections and there is a certain Rachael Noxious to be dealt with. There is also the backing-down Righteous cameraman to pursue. No mercy, no prisoners, no compromise. Those are the rules of engagement. Their rules. We have to play by their rules, it's only fair.
First though, scary filum time.
UPDATE: Thumbs up for 'Dead Silence'. No happy ending and a policeman who does not believe in ghosties at all. The final twist is a beauty too. Best line is from the policeman - 'Don't make me chase you. I don't have a full tank of gas.'
It didn't scare the pants off me but it was a lot of fun. The scene with the dummy of Obo is excellent too. I hope he was paid for that.
I can pretend I'm at the pictures in the old days, with smoke and booze and film all at the same time.
In fact, if I could get hold of one of those ceiling mounted projector TVs, I could even have smoke in the beams.
All I need now is a wench in a short skirt with a tray of ice creams. And a git rustling a popcorn packet behind me. A few chattering children and an idiot with a red-rimmed torch flashing his way around...
Nah. This is better than the old days. I miss the wench with the tray of ices though.
Back later, hopefully wide-eyed and with hair on end.
I haven't forgotten the Smoke Wars. There are slogans to design for the other parties before the Holyrood elections and there is a certain Rachael Noxious to be dealt with. There is also the backing-down Righteous cameraman to pursue. No mercy, no prisoners, no compromise. Those are the rules of engagement. Their rules. We have to play by their rules, it's only fair.
First though, scary filum time.
UPDATE: Thumbs up for 'Dead Silence'. No happy ending and a policeman who does not believe in ghosties at all. The final twist is a beauty too. Best line is from the policeman - 'Don't make me chase you. I don't have a full tank of gas.'
It didn't scare the pants off me but it was a lot of fun. The scene with the dummy of Obo is excellent too. I hope he was paid for that.
Friday, 20 August 2010
Holyrood campaign on behalf of the SNP.
There has been much ado about the release of someone called Mr. Mudguard from prison. Apparently Mr. Mudguard was convicted of the Lockerbie bombings - I'm not saying he was involved and I'm not saying he was made a scapegoat, I don't know either way. That's now beside the point.
Scottish law allows for 'compassionate release' of prisoners who are likely to die shortly. It saves having to clear up stinky corpses from the cells and stops other prisoners worrying about being haunted by the likes of 'Poker' MacRamrod and 'Crikey, that's a marrow' MacWhopper. Agree with it or otherwise, that's the law.
So when doctors said that Mr. Mudguard only had three months to live, the SNP government ordered his release. They didn't do it to spite Labour, they didn't do it to spite Barry O'Blimey, they did it because well, they didn't really have a choice. It's the law. Doctors said he was about to croak, the law says they have to let him go home.
Now, Scottish Labour (who actually promote nothing of the kind) insist the SNP issue an apology for following the law. Why? Because Mr. Mudguard didn't die as instructed by British doctors but was instead saved, and has maybe a couple more years in him, after seeing some Libyan doctors.
It seems to me that it might be worth talking to those Libyan doctors because they're better at treating terminal cancer cases than ours. They are keeping Mr. Mudguard alive long after ours had given up on him. Nobody has noticed that. They are all far too concerned that someone has lived beyond his legally-allocated time to wonder why that should be.
Al the Oily Fish should not, indeed must not apologise for working within the law. There are damn few instances of that in politics as it is. He should simply point out that MSPs are not in a position to predict the life expectancy of cancer patients and therefore they must rely on the expert testimony of the doctors. If the doctors screw up, they should apologise. Not the government.
Go on, Al. Just once. Let them demand that apology in Holyrood. Let them howl for it with impassioned lies and deep insincerity.
Then stand up, clear your throat and say 'Ach, awa' an' bile yer heid, ya wee bawbag'. Then take a swig of Buckfast and sit down. The reaction would be well worth seeing, don't you think?
And while doing that, you might want to consider how the smoking ban will affect my campaign on your behalf. Oh, I agree you have nothing to apologise for - indeed, in upholding the law to the letter, you have much to take pride in but then I'm a smoker and you have laws about me too. They don't include giving me three months without punishment, not even at the end. I also realise that few people have ever, or will ever hear this argument and even if they do it's not going to cut any ice with them.
This is Lockerbie we're talking about, Al. The town that terrorists crashed a plane into. Not quite the body count of 9/11 but for Scotland, it's pretty much an equivalent feeling. Let's face it. This was one time when you could have ignored the law and most people would have been on your side.
And don't forget, Oily Al, I'm a smoker. The lowest of the low. Filth of the sort you wouldn't scrape off your shoe - you'd throw those shoes away and buy new ones.
Also, don't forget why that is. You helped put me there. You're still helping. Your party is doing all it can to make me into the level of filth that if you stepped in it, you'd throw away every stitch you were wearing, scrub yourself in Dettol and buy a whole new wardrobe. Not just the clothes, the wardrobe too. This is where you helped to put me. This is where you are still kicking me and stamping me down harder.
So it should come as no surprise when I reveal my newest campaign slogan on behalf of the SNP.
"Vote SNP - set a terrorist free."
Catchy, isn't it? Very chantable, if I say so myself.
Hey, Oily Al, I did not choose to be your enemy. You chose that. I'm just trying to live up to your expectations.
How am I doing? Filthy and despicable enough yet, or should I try harder? It all depends on what your government does to me next.
Your move.
Scottish law allows for 'compassionate release' of prisoners who are likely to die shortly. It saves having to clear up stinky corpses from the cells and stops other prisoners worrying about being haunted by the likes of 'Poker' MacRamrod and 'Crikey, that's a marrow' MacWhopper. Agree with it or otherwise, that's the law.
So when doctors said that Mr. Mudguard only had three months to live, the SNP government ordered his release. They didn't do it to spite Labour, they didn't do it to spite Barry O'Blimey, they did it because well, they didn't really have a choice. It's the law. Doctors said he was about to croak, the law says they have to let him go home.
Now, Scottish Labour (who actually promote nothing of the kind) insist the SNP issue an apology for following the law. Why? Because Mr. Mudguard didn't die as instructed by British doctors but was instead saved, and has maybe a couple more years in him, after seeing some Libyan doctors.
It seems to me that it might be worth talking to those Libyan doctors because they're better at treating terminal cancer cases than ours. They are keeping Mr. Mudguard alive long after ours had given up on him. Nobody has noticed that. They are all far too concerned that someone has lived beyond his legally-allocated time to wonder why that should be.
Al the Oily Fish should not, indeed must not apologise for working within the law. There are damn few instances of that in politics as it is. He should simply point out that MSPs are not in a position to predict the life expectancy of cancer patients and therefore they must rely on the expert testimony of the doctors. If the doctors screw up, they should apologise. Not the government.
Go on, Al. Just once. Let them demand that apology in Holyrood. Let them howl for it with impassioned lies and deep insincerity.
Then stand up, clear your throat and say 'Ach, awa' an' bile yer heid, ya wee bawbag'. Then take a swig of Buckfast and sit down. The reaction would be well worth seeing, don't you think?
And while doing that, you might want to consider how the smoking ban will affect my campaign on your behalf. Oh, I agree you have nothing to apologise for - indeed, in upholding the law to the letter, you have much to take pride in but then I'm a smoker and you have laws about me too. They don't include giving me three months without punishment, not even at the end. I also realise that few people have ever, or will ever hear this argument and even if they do it's not going to cut any ice with them.
This is Lockerbie we're talking about, Al. The town that terrorists crashed a plane into. Not quite the body count of 9/11 but for Scotland, it's pretty much an equivalent feeling. Let's face it. This was one time when you could have ignored the law and most people would have been on your side.
And don't forget, Oily Al, I'm a smoker. The lowest of the low. Filth of the sort you wouldn't scrape off your shoe - you'd throw those shoes away and buy new ones.
Also, don't forget why that is. You helped put me there. You're still helping. Your party is doing all it can to make me into the level of filth that if you stepped in it, you'd throw away every stitch you were wearing, scrub yourself in Dettol and buy a whole new wardrobe. Not just the clothes, the wardrobe too. This is where you helped to put me. This is where you are still kicking me and stamping me down harder.
So it should come as no surprise when I reveal my newest campaign slogan on behalf of the SNP.
"Vote SNP - set a terrorist free."
Catchy, isn't it? Very chantable, if I say so myself.
Hey, Oily Al, I did not choose to be your enemy. You chose that. I'm just trying to live up to your expectations.
How am I doing? Filthy and despicable enough yet, or should I try harder? It all depends on what your government does to me next.
Your move.
Coincidence.
Shattered tonight. Busy day today and the same again tomorrow. Even so, a chilling thing has happened to me (again). I don't believe in any of this telepathy or precognition stuff, but I cannot ignore this little coincidence.
A couple of days ago, I had a request for a full novel manuscript. A scary story set, as are many of my scary stories over the years, in the fictional town of Marchway. A town full of strange and distorted characters, many in positions of influence. The local people often don't even notice the bizarre creatures in their midst. That submission was the longest Marchway-based story I've ever sent anywhere.
Shortly after that request, this hit the news.
Then this.
And this.
And this.
All these unlikely tales of terror and despair are true. Not made-up. True. They all happened in a real place.
Called Medway.
I think I need a very stiff drink.
A couple of days ago, I had a request for a full novel manuscript. A scary story set, as are many of my scary stories over the years, in the fictional town of Marchway. A town full of strange and distorted characters, many in positions of influence. The local people often don't even notice the bizarre creatures in their midst. That submission was the longest Marchway-based story I've ever sent anywhere.
Shortly after that request, this hit the news.
Then this.
And this.
And this.
All these unlikely tales of terror and despair are true. Not made-up. True. They all happened in a real place.
Called Medway.
I think I need a very stiff drink.
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Is that tide about to turn?
Corrugated Soundbite points out that the cameraman responsible for the 'ciggie thugs' video has this listed as a hobby on his YouTube account:
'calling chavs and smokers idiots'
Interesting hobby. My latest hobby is 'scaring smokophobes to death with psychology' and I think it's a little more creative than just sneering and saying 'idiot'.
So he is happy to sneer at smokers and declare himself a superior being. Yet, on the posted video, faced with a few comments, he backs away and attempts to claim that all he did was film the event. Interesting how quickly the bullies back down, isn't it?
The thing is, if you read through the Emails posted at Fuel Injected Moose - copies of which have been sent to the relevant people - more information comes to light.
A local quango known as 'A Better Medway' (presumably they'll count it as 'better' when it is occupied only by the Aryan race) were involved, as were the council and local NHS. The camera equipment was provided.
So, the cameraman wasn't just a random observer. He was an integral part of it. Now he seems to be worried that it might affect his reputation as a photographer, he's trying to play it down. I note that he has no concerns about what this does to his reputation as a human being.
No compromise, smokophobe. Don't complain when we play your game by your rules.
Anyone overweight had better learn the rules too. In the Telegraph, some slaphead denounces fatty foods as the cause of all the world's ills.
There’s something about the dish known as bacon explosion that’s typically American. If you haven’t come across it, the recipe comprises Italian sausagemeat and syrupy barbecue sauce all bound up in a sort of roll with a lattice of fatty bacon, then smoked on a barbecue at a rate of one hour per inch. The whole thing contains about half a kilo of fat.
It is not a meal for one. That 'half kilo of fat' guess only applies if you eat the whole thing and those that could are rare indeed. Personally, I'd quite like a slice, but there's no way I could eat much more than that and certainly not every day. It's not the food, Mr. Extended Forehead. It's how much you eat.
And then there’s the obesity question.
Ah yes, the obesity question. It all depends on how you define 'obese', and if that definition is 'anyone fatter than me' then the world's your oyster. Unless you're the fattest man in the world in which case you're pretty much going to get the blame for everything. So that's the question. What's the answer?
The bacon explosion looks like the kind of dish that you need to be fat already in order to enjoy.
Only if you plan to eat all of it yourself at one sitting. I can enjoy a cream cake without getting fat because I don't eat many of them. See? It's not hard. You don't need to be fat to enjoy fatty food and you don't need to get fat if you eat it. Only if you eat a lot of it regularly.
Here’s a website – This is why you’re fat – which is entirely devoted to this special category of foodstuffs. If you can cope with this kind of menu item ... you’re liable to have a massive stomach in the first place. Truly, it’s no wonder the website carries the sub-heading “where dreams become heart attacks”.
The picture of 'nacho pizza cake' is not the reason anyone, anywhere is fat. It could be the reason someone spent all night throwing up but fat? No chance. Nobody could keep that down. As for tinned chicken, why is that particularly fattening? It doesn't look like a one-portion can to me, it just looks like a means of storing chicken long-term. Chicken isn't a very fatty food either.
It's made-up nonsense. It's fatophobes making up ridiculous food combinations in huge portions and convincing themselves that it's what fat people eat. It bears no resemblance to reality yet fatophobes everywhere will nod in sage agreement because it suits their particular bigotry. The idea that nobody but a fat person can eat fatty foods, the implication that anyone presented with an entire meatloaf will instantly devour it all, leads to the denormalisation and finally dehumanisation of fat people.
Listen to the smokers, fat people. We've seen the same methods. Soon they'll hide their children from you because they'll be convinced you'll eat them, and if you don't, they might catch obesity from you.
Eventually, you too will be attacked in the street by teacher-encouraged thugs while a cameraman films you and calls you 'idiot'. Probably the same one.
Turn on them now, fatties. Right now. Don't sit back and think 'well, perhaps they're right' because they're not. They aren't even bothering with the truth. What you are facing is pure, unreasoning hate. Turn on them, vent your anger at them, and when they harass you, harass them back. Ignore any attempt at compromise because they don't want compromise. They want it all. If you let up even for a moment they will surge forward again.
It's what we smokers should have done a long time ago. It took children attacking smokers in the street to really get the rage going. There have been smoker comments on smokophobes' articles for a long time but they were generally an attempt at reasoned debate. The smokophobes dismissed them all. They don't care about reasoned debate.
Then, that video changed the mood. Smokers and non-smokers raged at the YouTube posting and the smokophobe photographer backed off sharpish. He's been kicking the dog for a long time and all it did was yelp. Now it's barking and baring its teeth and he's looking for a way out. Well, there isn't one.
I considered contacting You Tube and reminding them of the 'happy slapping' craze they were blamed for. They are about to get blamed for another one. Then I thought no, leave it there. Let that craze happen. There are too many smokers who will just sit back and accept whatever is thrown at them. Let's see if they'll accept this.
Let's see who the police arrest when the inevitable happens and a smokophobe gets beaten to a pulp for attacking a smoker. Let's see how the press can spin that one. Let's make it public.
Many smokers are unaware of the conversations on the internet. They won't hear the arguments, they never know where the next restriction has come from, they will be surprised when some spotty youth snatches their cigarette and they will be enraged. Good.
It's about time.
UPDATE: The photographer has removed the video. That is a historic moment. it's the first time a smokophobe has backed down. However, the little Nazis have one of their own, and here it is -
I wonder if they'll back down too?
'calling chavs and smokers idiots'
Interesting hobby. My latest hobby is 'scaring smokophobes to death with psychology' and I think it's a little more creative than just sneering and saying 'idiot'.
So he is happy to sneer at smokers and declare himself a superior being. Yet, on the posted video, faced with a few comments, he backs away and attempts to claim that all he did was film the event. Interesting how quickly the bullies back down, isn't it?
The thing is, if you read through the Emails posted at Fuel Injected Moose - copies of which have been sent to the relevant people - more information comes to light.
A local quango known as 'A Better Medway' (presumably they'll count it as 'better' when it is occupied only by the Aryan race) were involved, as were the council and local NHS. The camera equipment was provided.
So, the cameraman wasn't just a random observer. He was an integral part of it. Now he seems to be worried that it might affect his reputation as a photographer, he's trying to play it down. I note that he has no concerns about what this does to his reputation as a human being.
No compromise, smokophobe. Don't complain when we play your game by your rules.
Anyone overweight had better learn the rules too. In the Telegraph, some slaphead denounces fatty foods as the cause of all the world's ills.
There’s something about the dish known as bacon explosion that’s typically American. If you haven’t come across it, the recipe comprises Italian sausagemeat and syrupy barbecue sauce all bound up in a sort of roll with a lattice of fatty bacon, then smoked on a barbecue at a rate of one hour per inch. The whole thing contains about half a kilo of fat.
It is not a meal for one. That 'half kilo of fat' guess only applies if you eat the whole thing and those that could are rare indeed. Personally, I'd quite like a slice, but there's no way I could eat much more than that and certainly not every day. It's not the food, Mr. Extended Forehead. It's how much you eat.
And then there’s the obesity question.
Ah yes, the obesity question. It all depends on how you define 'obese', and if that definition is 'anyone fatter than me' then the world's your oyster. Unless you're the fattest man in the world in which case you're pretty much going to get the blame for everything. So that's the question. What's the answer?
The bacon explosion looks like the kind of dish that you need to be fat already in order to enjoy.
Only if you plan to eat all of it yourself at one sitting. I can enjoy a cream cake without getting fat because I don't eat many of them. See? It's not hard. You don't need to be fat to enjoy fatty food and you don't need to get fat if you eat it. Only if you eat a lot of it regularly.
Here’s a website – This is why you’re fat – which is entirely devoted to this special category of foodstuffs. If you can cope with this kind of menu item ... you’re liable to have a massive stomach in the first place. Truly, it’s no wonder the website carries the sub-heading “where dreams become heart attacks”.
The picture of 'nacho pizza cake' is not the reason anyone, anywhere is fat. It could be the reason someone spent all night throwing up but fat? No chance. Nobody could keep that down. As for tinned chicken, why is that particularly fattening? It doesn't look like a one-portion can to me, it just looks like a means of storing chicken long-term. Chicken isn't a very fatty food either.
It's made-up nonsense. It's fatophobes making up ridiculous food combinations in huge portions and convincing themselves that it's what fat people eat. It bears no resemblance to reality yet fatophobes everywhere will nod in sage agreement because it suits their particular bigotry. The idea that nobody but a fat person can eat fatty foods, the implication that anyone presented with an entire meatloaf will instantly devour it all, leads to the denormalisation and finally dehumanisation of fat people.
Listen to the smokers, fat people. We've seen the same methods. Soon they'll hide their children from you because they'll be convinced you'll eat them, and if you don't, they might catch obesity from you.
Eventually, you too will be attacked in the street by teacher-encouraged thugs while a cameraman films you and calls you 'idiot'. Probably the same one.
Turn on them now, fatties. Right now. Don't sit back and think 'well, perhaps they're right' because they're not. They aren't even bothering with the truth. What you are facing is pure, unreasoning hate. Turn on them, vent your anger at them, and when they harass you, harass them back. Ignore any attempt at compromise because they don't want compromise. They want it all. If you let up even for a moment they will surge forward again.
It's what we smokers should have done a long time ago. It took children attacking smokers in the street to really get the rage going. There have been smoker comments on smokophobes' articles for a long time but they were generally an attempt at reasoned debate. The smokophobes dismissed them all. They don't care about reasoned debate.
Then, that video changed the mood. Smokers and non-smokers raged at the YouTube posting and the smokophobe photographer backed off sharpish. He's been kicking the dog for a long time and all it did was yelp. Now it's barking and baring its teeth and he's looking for a way out. Well, there isn't one.
I considered contacting You Tube and reminding them of the 'happy slapping' craze they were blamed for. They are about to get blamed for another one. Then I thought no, leave it there. Let that craze happen. There are too many smokers who will just sit back and accept whatever is thrown at them. Let's see if they'll accept this.
Let's see who the police arrest when the inevitable happens and a smokophobe gets beaten to a pulp for attacking a smoker. Let's see how the press can spin that one. Let's make it public.
Many smokers are unaware of the conversations on the internet. They won't hear the arguments, they never know where the next restriction has come from, they will be surprised when some spotty youth snatches their cigarette and they will be enraged. Good.
It's about time.
UPDATE: The photographer has removed the video. That is a historic moment. it's the first time a smokophobe has backed down. However, the little Nazis have one of their own, and here it is -
I wonder if they'll back down too?
The night train to anywhere.
The overnight train from Barcelona to Milan had a surprise in store for its passengers. It took them to Zurich instead.
Now that's a pretty surreal experience. How can it happen?
The overnight Salvador Dalà train,
Ah, right.
Always check the train guard's watch. If it's melted, wait for the next train.
Now that's a pretty surreal experience. How can it happen?
The overnight Salvador Dalà train,
Ah, right.
Always check the train guard's watch. If it's melted, wait for the next train.
Training the New Blackshirts.
The comments below this video on YouTube are enlightening. Even the member who posted it, the cameraman who shot the film, attempts to distance himself from it. Only those in the film don't see any problem with what they are doing. Oh, and the local police don't have a problem with it either.
Via Dick Puddlecote, the source of this sorry tale of hate and spite is here. Fuel Injected Moose has the story too, along with the contact details for the female Fagin who runs this merry band of thieves.
What is interesting is that the police were informed, by Fagin herself, exactly what they planned to do and the police were fine with that. Filming in the street? Anyone else gets stopped under anti-tourist laws but if they are going to film assaults on smokers, no problem.
Happy slapping? Not allowed. Oh, your targets are smokers? Well that's all right then, you carry on.
Theft? That's against the law. Oh, you're going to steal from smokers? That's fine, they don't count.
Try it here, and the first cry of 'ciggie busters' will be met by a response of 'thief thumpers'. Sure, I'll end up in court for defending myself from a street mugging but that little bastard will spend time in hospital and I know just what he's likely to catch in there. Prison is more hygienic. And I'll be able to smoke in there. Sounds like a good deal to me. It'll save time anyway, we're bound to be rounded up and imprisoned soon enough.
The State sanctioning of violence against smokers has never been more clear. Schools are moving on from getting kids to harass their smoking parents to teaching them actual street-violence against a group of people. Yet the State whines that we aren't paying UK duty on our tobacco, we aren't supporting pubs, clubs and restaurants in the recession and that we are a drain on the NHS that we have more than paid for while being excluded from it.
I'm still sticking little magnets everywhere. I'll have to print more.
The smokophobia goes further. A game is now available that allows you to shoot smokers. There have already been assaults and deaths due to smokophobes attacking smokers in the street - where they have been thrown to get them out of the sight of the smokophobic Righteous. Now it seems it's okay to shoot at us. Oh, it's just a game. For now. Those children show where it's heading. With police support.
We should never have let them have that first non-smoking carriage on the train.
It is no longer a war of words. The smokophobes now use open violence. The police don't mind. The medics won't mind either, because they won't have to stitch us up afterwards. As smokers, they can just let us die unless we conform to their dictated lifestyle.
Watch for the first smoker in court for daring to defend themselves against the indoctrinated morons of the Gorgon Youth. Yes, Labour did this and what are the Coagulation going to do?
Nothing. They are too busy looking at ways to cull the pensioner population.
You can be arrested for looking at a Muslim in a funny way in this country, even if the Muslim isn't offended at all but some random stranger perceives your look to be offensive. Yet tell the police you plan to start mugging smokers in broad daylight and that is perfectly okay.
Cleggeron, just put up the damn swastika flag and get it over with, will you? Then you can give pretty armbands to all your nasty little Stasi and arm them with smoker-bashing sticks. You might as well hand out the drinker-thumping steel bars and the fat-people cattle prods at the same time. We know it's coming. Just do it. Maybe then we'll see a reaction. Maybe then all those smokers who just shrug and accept every new restriction will finally say 'Hang on...'
No wonder they wanted us disarmed.
No poofters.
The Catholic Church has rules.
Rule 1 - No poofters.
Rule 2 - Nobody is to molest the choirboys in any way at all - if there's anybody watching.
Rule 3 - No poofters.
And so on.
I think their rules and indeed their whole concept of having a Pope who is a direct line to a God who is omnipotent yet perpetually in need of money is just stupid. But I'm not a member of that club so its rules are irrelevant to me. They can choose whoever they want as members. They are very unlikely to choose me even though I'm not a poofter, because I have no interest at all in either choirs or boys and can't exercise the level of restraint in oratory which was exemplified by Ian Paisley.
Even so, I have no objection to the existence of the Catholic Church because it's none of my business. Their rules don't bind me. All I need do to avoid their rules is not go there. It's hardly onerous.
Yet the State doesn't see it that way. According to the State, a Catholic adoption agency funded by the Catholic church must fit with State rules, not the rules applied by their funders. They must allow gay couples to adopt even though their religion (and funding source) forbids it and even though gay couples have other sources of children who all look the same and are all equally repellent anyway.
I have no... interest in who adopts who. Really. Any home life has to be better than life in a home, surely? I have to admit to zero experience in this matter so I stand to be corrected.
Even so, I doubt the number of gay couples wanting to adopt is very high. So if one agency says 'no poofters', is that really a problem? There are others who don't have that rule.
This adoption agency has been forced to close because if they can't say 'No poofters' then their funding stops. We taxpayers save nothing because we're not paying. The Cath Club is paying.
So - all the children on their books. What happens to them now?
Are they destined to grow up in storage?
Rule 1 - No poofters.
Rule 2 - Nobody is to molest the choirboys in any way at all - if there's anybody watching.
Rule 3 - No poofters.
And so on.
I think their rules and indeed their whole concept of having a Pope who is a direct line to a God who is omnipotent yet perpetually in need of money is just stupid. But I'm not a member of that club so its rules are irrelevant to me. They can choose whoever they want as members. They are very unlikely to choose me even though I'm not a poofter, because I have no interest at all in either choirs or boys and can't exercise the level of restraint in oratory which was exemplified by Ian Paisley.
Even so, I have no objection to the existence of the Catholic Church because it's none of my business. Their rules don't bind me. All I need do to avoid their rules is not go there. It's hardly onerous.
Yet the State doesn't see it that way. According to the State, a Catholic adoption agency funded by the Catholic church must fit with State rules, not the rules applied by their funders. They must allow gay couples to adopt even though their religion (and funding source) forbids it and even though gay couples have other sources of children who all look the same and are all equally repellent anyway.
I have no... interest in who adopts who. Really. Any home life has to be better than life in a home, surely? I have to admit to zero experience in this matter so I stand to be corrected.
Even so, I doubt the number of gay couples wanting to adopt is very high. So if one agency says 'no poofters', is that really a problem? There are others who don't have that rule.
This adoption agency has been forced to close because if they can't say 'No poofters' then their funding stops. We taxpayers save nothing because we're not paying. The Cath Club is paying.
So - all the children on their books. What happens to them now?
Are they destined to grow up in storage?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)